GOD'S WARRIORS

(The following was originally written as a series of e-mails to various acquaintances on August 23, 2007 following the 3-night CNN special of the foregoing title by Christianne Amanpour,)

Pursuant to what I learned from the CNN special, I have made at least 8 observations of characteristics seemingly shared by all three fundamentalist groups, ultra-Orthodox Jews, fundamentalist Muslims and fundamentalist Christians. I have also just finished reading Jimmy Carter's new book, "Peace, Not Apartheid," which is a good supplemental read on these topics. Carter was interviewed by Amanpour several times. I think Thomas Friedman has also prolifically written on Middle East issues.

In fact, I would say that one of the major ironies of their mutual distrust and even hatred of each other (less so between Orthodox Jews and right-wing Christians) is how much they are all alike!

Anyway, here they are:

1--They each claim infallibility, as much as the others are so "obviously" wrong;

2--They each are certain that their deity of choice (who is supposedly the same shared deity) is on their side exclusively (supports #1);

3--They are each convinced that the rest of the world is in serious decline and that their belief structure is the only salvation;

4--The more extreme of each group is willing to inflict harm on the others to prevail. They are each defined mainly by what human behavior they are AGAINST, and that is also generally shared between groups;

5--Each is also convinced they are under attack and endangered for their beliefs; and

6--They are each able to recruit unquestioning disciples who manifest their own extremist views. Some are willing to die therefor.

7—There is a reliance of each on an ancient infallible text as the source of their infallible authority, to the exclusion of any current empirical observations; and

8—Most persons in each group manifest a certitude that they speak and act for their respective deities, tied in with Nos. 2 and 4.

I was transfixed by what I saw, even as I was angered, especially by what I was seeing and hearing about the right-wing Christians on the last night. It is obvious there is a LOT of money flowing into each fundamentalist group, and that they have enormous secular power in their respective geographic areas. In fact, their persecution complexes are actually assisting them financially and politically. The right-wing Christians are especially ironic in claiming and exercising their First Amendment rights to promote their religion in the US while being willing to legally relegate other religions to secondary status!

Their common opposition to homosexuality, sexual liberation/female liberation, female clergy, secular government, secular entertainment, alcohol consumption and other shared "enemies" is striking. Therein lies the root of the decline of civilization they each deplore and vow to correct.

They are each defined mostly by intolerance of nonbelievers. This makes them each very dangerous, but in the US, at least, they are free to promote such aims.

Finally, I am moved to conclude that mental and emotional stability may be in inverse proportion to religious belief, irrespective of cult. I hate to generalize about any group of people for I have always tried to judge only individuals, but while I am willing to consider individual exceptions to the foregoing assumption, I am wary of anyone who puts his/her own religious beliefs beyond question. That sort of arrogance borders on mental illness, in my view.

The term, "psycho asshole" comes to mind!

I am aware of the distinction between "fundamentalist" Christians and "evangelical" Christians. I have used "fundamentalist" interchangeably with "right-wing" since there are some evangelicals who are not right-wing. I can't say I know any "liberal" fundamentalists!

Now, having explored at length the 8 or so major similarities among ultra-Orthodox Jews, fundamentalist Muslims and fundamentalist Christians as presented via Christianne Amanpour's three-night program on CNN, I now feel obliged to acknowledge one significant difference between those groups, and that is how they each address and utilize violence in furtherance of their respective goals.

The fundamentalist Christians talk violently, but for the most part they have no need for the use of it because they are so empowered, primarily in the US. There are some exceptions, like Eric Rudolph and the other abortion-clinic bombers. On the other hand, the least empowered (in the Western World sense) are the Muslims, and they seem to reach for violent acts almost indiscriminately. Ironically, both groups are strong on belief in an afterlife (less so, I think, for most Jews), but Christians seem much less willing to go there than Muslims, whose ethic seems to reflect a certain oriental attitude (moreso than Christians) that diminishes the significance of earthly life. Muslims seem much more prepared for self-sacrifice than either of the two other groups. Their use of indiscriminate violence toward "infidels" seems the most frequent.

Ultra-Orthodox Jews are quite empowered, but their violence seems acutely focused toward Palestinian Arab Muslims and Christians. What is so striking to me about the attitudes of some is their seeming pleasure at their targeted use of violence, which is reflected in Israel state policy as well. That obvious pleasure is chilling to observe, and perhaps for me the most terrifying. I contrast that pleasure with the grim attitude of most Muslims and the bombast of fundamentalist Christians. While some Islamic states may be officially aggressive or violent, Israel is the most overtly violent, though almost exclusively toward Palestinians, and that moves me to conclude that Israel is a terrorist state. Others will surely and vehemently disagree, but if North Korea and Iran so qualify, then Israel certainly does as well in my opinion. Furthermore, the US taxpayer is directly funding a lot of that anti-Palestinian violence.

I think that is about all I can say on the subject.

MAYA LIN (Poem)

MAYA LIN

(The following was written in May of 2007 and revised 6/26/07:)

Black Granite Hole;

Bomber wing of shame, plunged, imbedded into the Earth.

Searing laser names, following me like piercing eyes.

Yet, I return, time and again, knowing no one thereon.

Yet, I return, time and again, weeping uncontrollably,

Knowing no one thereon.

Tearful anger boils inside.

No one thereon has any business thereon.

That undeclared “war” was bullshit.

This undeclared “war” IS bullshit.

Déjà vu all over again.

Innocents sent by “elders,” safely ensconced in their upholstery.

Innocents dying bravely or being mangled,

For Dog and Country.

Corporations making money.

Dulce et decorum est.

Fail to “support the troops” at your cowardly peril.

“Fight ‘em there or fight ‘em here.”

“They” are already here; always have been. Oops.

Kill ‘em anyway.

Feeling good is patriotic.

Feeling patriotic is good.

HABEAS WHA?

(Submitted as a letter to the Editor of "The Nation" magazine, 3/9/07)

Habeas corpus: "Produce the body."

At English common law, that was one of the writs a court could issue to command a sheriff (one of the King's servants and policy executioners) to bring forth a prisoner (being held pursuant to the King's law) and to explain the legal basis for the prisoner's detention.

PRESUMABLY (and contrary to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales's recent assertions), that doctrine was preserved as a right in the US for people following the American Revolution.

David Sentelle and the other statist on the DC (federal) Circuit Court review panel asserted (2-1) that habeas corpus did not apply to anyone physically outside of the official geographic boundaries of the US. Supposedly, the doctrine is NOT a restraint on the POWER of the US government (as it was a restraint on the power of the King of England, who had no "Gitmo" to drag prisoners to, just Australia) but is, instead, a dispensation from a benevolent government to those lucky individuals who just happen, perhaps by accident, to be behind an artificially-drawn line on a map. Following the (il)logic of the DC Circuit, all the "king" would have to do is kidnap some schmuck and drag him or her across the border and, voila!, there would be no more pesky due process, no more pesky habeas corpus, no more pesky Bill of Rights! "In the US" means exactly that and nothing else.

According to David Cole, the poor dears on the DC Circuit could not find where the King of England had, by 1789, deigned to allow foreign nationals the right of habeas corpus. I am comforted to know that the DC Circuit finds the King's benevolences 218 years ago to be dispositive of my rights today. I mean, we gotta teach those Muslim "towel-heads" who's boss, right?

So, in total disregard of what most of the Founders said, over and over, in total disregard of what most learned scholars have said, over and over, silly little doctrines like "due process," habeas corpus, etc. are NOT restraints on the power of the US government, anywhere, anytime, but are, instead, subject to the political whims of, say theoretically, a cowardly, corrupt Congress and a nefarious, emotionally disturbed, dry-drunk Chief Executive. Theoretically speaking.

David Sentelle, Robert Bork, John Wu, Alberto Gonzales, Ed Meese, et als, have each expressed the notion many times that, contrary to the NINTH AMENDMENT, "rights" don't exist unless a court somewhere or a law explicitly says so. They would likely say that "rights" are not a restraint on government power but are conditional, depending upon what the "king" says. AND, government powers are UNLIMITED (contrary to the TENTH AMENDMENT) unless and until a court says otherwise. Screw the Bill of Rights! I'm sure Alberto Gonzales can find some exceptions.

Interesting. I dread what Samuel Alito, John Roberts, et als, are going to do with this matter.

"Uh-oh, what's that sound? Everybody look what's going down!"

VOLTS vs. RESISTANCE

THE (APPARENT) PARADOX OF VOLTAGE AND RESISTANCE

(The following was written in the fall of 2006 as a statement of understanding of electrical technology.)

One of the issues that has caused me much confusion in my studies of auto technology is the apparent paradoxical relationship between voltage and resistance in a series electrical circuit. Now, for the benefit of the “electrically challenged,” most motor vehicles are electrically powered by 12-volt batteries which, by their very nature, produce what is called “direct” current (DC), as opposed to the 110-volt “alternating” current (AC) in most houses. Household alternating current switches polarity (+ and -) 60 times per second (60 Hertz) back and forth, while vehicular direct current does not change its polarity at all. It is a steady stream of current out of the battery (which is recharged by the generator/alternator) unbroken except by various switches. Most vehicles are negatively grounded, meaning the (-) pole on the battery is hooked up to the engine block, chassis and body, while most of the various devices are hooked up only to the (+) terminal through the fuse panel and/or the ignition switch, and then to the block, body or chassis for ground.
The general reader should know that voltage (volts) is merely the energy or “pressure” within a circuit; current (amps) is the “juice quantity” in a circuit (like gallons in a water pipe); while resistance (ohms) is any load impeding the flow of electricity in a circuit, much like a fire hose feeding into a garden hose. Every single part of an electric circuit inherently creates some resistance to the flow of electricity, even the wires. So, bulbs, motors, heating elements, hair dryers and such all produce resistances on a circuit.

The general reader should also understand that only a broken or switching voltage can be changed up or down through a transformer or coil. Thus, alternating household voltages are easy to transform (and usually are) while vehicular DC voltage has to be deliberately interrupted with a switch or breaker of some sort, to enable the steady magnetic field that surrounds all wires carrying a direct current to “collapse” through the wiring present to induce a current in other nearby wires, such as what happens in a vehicle ignition coil.

In a vehicle coil for a gasoline-powered engine (Diesels don’t have coils or electrical ignition), the primary ignition circuit runs from the battery to the ignition switch to the “primary” windings of a single wire in the coil to the ignition “breaker” points in the distributor which act as a switch to rapidly interrupt the primary current’s flow back to ground through the distributor and engine block. The secondary ignition windings (also a single wire) in a coil are nestled next to the primary windings, and they are much more numerous than the primary windings. As the distributor spins around the breaker points close and open, thus interrupting the primary current flow. More modern cars use transistorized switching components rather than mechanical breaker points.

The magnetic field standing around the 12-volt (or less) primary wire in the coil collapses back through the more numerous secondary windings in the coil, thus inducing a much higher voltage (over 30,000 volts) in the secondary windings. This high-voltage current jumps the air gap in the distributor between the rotor and the cap, then again jumps another air gap in the spark plugs themselves, thanks to the much higher available voltage. The plugs are grounded to the engine block, which is where the high-voltage surge wants to go. As the spark jumps the gaps in the plugs, the gasoline-and-air mix burns, and the pistons inside the engine are successively shoved down by the resultant pressure from the burning gases. That is essentially what makes the engine turn over and run.

A seeming paradoxical “beast” reared its ugly head most recently in a discussion of the effects of resistance in the secondary circuits that fire spark plugs in an engine, to-wit: that higher voltages are not “impeded” by existing resistances, per se, such as those encountered with the air gaps in distributors and spark plugs. Yet resistors are frequently used with other loads to “chew up” excessive voltage! What goes with that?

Ohm’s Law is the source of some of the confusion, even though it merely states the reality of the relationship among voltage (E), resistance (R) and current (I). Now, Ohm’s Law is neither good nor bad; it just is. Ohm’s Law is frequently used to calculate resultant unknown voltage. For those not familiar with Ohm’s Law, it holds that a single volt will push a single amp through a resistance of one ohm, and is expressed as an equation of volts = amps x ohms (1 = 1 x 1), or E = I x R. The reader also needs to know about Watt’s Law, named after James Watt. A watt is a unit of electric power (P), and it is the calculated product of the energy (volts) and the current (amps), P = V x A. The electric usage in most homes, for example, is measured in kilowatt-hours, a function of the number of watts consumed each month.
My confusion stems from a repetitive misunderstanding about the effects of resistance on voltage. There are some instances in which a given chain of resistance does not overwhelm available voltage. In fact, they seem mutually supportive in a literal reading of Ohm’s Law, where voltage is the product of current and resistance, and an unknown voltage must increase if resistance increases, assuming constant current.

However, in most real-world applications, voltage does not vary much: in vehicles it is usually fixed at 12-13 volts, and in households it is usually fixed around 110 volts. Those quantities rarely vary in dependable circuits. Most vehicle and household circuit systems are parallel circuits.

A parallel circuit in a vehicle would have the various loads hooked up to various wires coming from the (+) battery terminal while all being simultaneously yet separately grounded to the (-) terminal via the engine, chassis or body. A series circuit would have all of the loads hooked together heads-to-tails in a daisy-chain sort of arrangement between a single connection between the (+) and (-) terminals. Unlike a parallel circuit, wherein voltage remains constant thoughout the circuit and current (amps) is divided among the various loads, in a series circuit we have been taught that voltage is divided among the loads and current remains constant. Thus, Ohm’s Law (inverted thus: I = E/R, or R = E/I) will be useful to calculate the entire current draw or the TOTAL resistance in the entire series circuit, while the voltage is divided among the loads therein. And that current draw will be the same for each load in the series circuit.
Resistances vary, however, as devices and accessories are added or subtracted from parallel circuits, dividing up the amperage present, while in a series sub-circuit, each load therein will demand its own share of the voltage present while the entire circuit is limited to 12 volts in most applications. The voltage-resistance paradox does not really present itself in parallel-circuit-only situations. Where the paradox arises is best illustrated by the resistor wire or ballast in the primary ignition circuit, where the 12 volts going into the primary windings in a coil is cut to 7 or 8 volts by the ballast or resistor wire which is connected in series ahead of the coil and points. This happens to reduce the voltage expended within the primary coil circuit to protect the points from burning. It also reduces the likely current flow through the points, which potentially causes the actual burning. Less voltage will also carry less current.

As previously stated, the multiplier effect of the secondary windings in the coil will produce more than enough higher voltage necessary to jump the air gaps mentioned while itself carrying relatively modest current as well (current and resistance in a circuit are inversely related). Well, if Ohm’s Law shows that resistance and voltage are mutually supportive how, then, is a resistance able to “cut” voltage?
The short “answer” is that Ohm’s Law more readily defines what happens in an entire coherent circuit but is less clear as to what happens within that circuit. For an entire circuit, there are available only 12 volts in an automotive application. Ohm’s Law will show what current flows for the total circuit when there is an aggregate resistance load thereon. Once that current flow and resistance load is known, it will multiply out to 12 volts. BUT—if there are two or more loads in series in that circuit, while each load will receive the calculated circuit current flow, the available voltage will be divided between/among those loads.
For example, if a 12-volt negative-ground circuit has a lamp (also negative-ground) drawing 1 amp of current, it will burn with 12 watts (volts x current) and have a load of 12 ohms’ resistance (R = E/I). Now, if a resistor of 12 ohms is put in series ahead of the lamp, then the total circuit load becomes 24 ohms, and the total current draw is reduced to ½ amp (I = E/R). Both the bulb and the resistor will each receive ½ amp of current draw at a total of 12 volts. However, there will be a voltage “drop” of 6 volts at the resistor, leaving only 6 volts “available” for the bulb itself. The bulb burns half as bright (6 watts) because the current has been cut to ½ amp on a 12-volt circuit, but it also receives only 6 working volts to chew up its 1-amp load, with the same 6-watt result in either case!
Also, the apparent paradox is resolved because the available “reserve” voltage in the secondary circuit from the coil is always more than enough to overcome whatever resistances are created by the distributor, the plug wires and the plugs themselves. In other words, the plugs fire in spite of the resistance, not because of it, but the resistance does cut the excess current, which is not needed for the spark to ignite the gasoline.
Confusing? It is for me, but I try to keep it straight by remembering that series circuits are voltage dividers, with each component therein getting the same current, while parallel circuits are current dividers, with each component therein getting the same voltage.
It is difficult to apply Ohm’s Law to each component within a series circuit, so it may be left alone once the total circuit characteristics are determined. However, a series resistor can help to reduce available voltage (and current) where necessary therein without reducing total circuit voltage! If the current is cut down by the available resistance, then it will require less voltage to move that current, so the voltage seems to drop as well, though it is not directly affected by the resistance.

Generic Management 101 (My palindrome)

[A palindrome is a word or phrase that reads the same, backward or forward, like "RADAR."]


A BMW; a rake--

EGAD! A geek!

A raw MBA!

TORQUE

(Sent as an e-mail in March, 2003.)

I was always troubled by my attraction to fast cars as somehow a confession of sexual inadequacy.  I read that somewhere in some self-help or wimmin's magazine written by some Birkenstock-wearing weenie who drove an automatic Ford Escort or some such, probably while munching sunflower seeds and watching "Oprah" regularly. 

Having materially participated in the design and (re-)engineering and rebuilding of my '66 Pontiac GTO (since 1986, when I took it off the road), I may be able to point to that in lieu of my general disregard for my own physical prowess.  I am not in very good shape these days, being too fat and lazy, but my car is FAST!  With a much more potent 5-speed in place of the original 4-speed, I can now have a "granny" first gear and a stupendous high-speed "Positraction" final drive of 2.93:1, which calcs out to about 150 mph top end (not that I have the balls to find out).  I used to be able to do all that, but I have lost both my hair and my nerve over the years. 

The engine has been replaced/rebuilt several times, it now being a 400c.i. (orig. 389 c.i.) with the original 3-deuce intake, slightly “fatter” (than stock) cam and roller rockers, cast-iron semi-headers and low-restriction exhaust system.  It runs nicely around town on 93-oct. unleaded, but it will leap like a scalded dog when stomped.  I have wrung out 3d gear, but I have no nerve to see the limit in 4th or 5th. 

It will do almost 60 in first! 

When the clutch is dumped and the accelerator is stomped, the front end of the car arches up and twists simultaneously against the torque of the engine, the clutch disk slamming against the flywheel.  The noise is unbelievably loud, with all three carbs sucking deep, their reptilian hissing mixed with the honking wail of the engine.  The noise obliterates one's thinking.  One is literally slammed into the back of the seat, unable to lean forward at all, barely able to peer over the front edge of the hood.  The compressed vitreous humor squeezes the available retinal field of view to a pinpoint, probably centered on the optic nerve end. With proper feathering, the tires will slip very little, they having been converted from the original bias-type tall, skinny "bicycle" tires to a low-profile, fat radial that is mounted on a repro Rally Type I wheel that is an inch larger in diameter (15") and inch wider (7") than the stock originals.  With a re-engineered suspension that uses offset upper control-arm shafts that pull the top of the wheel in toward the engine to get proper camber for the Firebird spindles now installed, the car corners very flat and sits about 3" lower than stock, using 1-1/2" sway bars front and rear.  All of this is backed up with massive disc brakes up front and the stock drums still in back.  GTO's didn't have disc brakes until 1967. 

All of this ensures that my car will do what the original GTO's would not: corner and stop.  The originals were great for straight-line acceleration, but way too many would try to straighten out curves and climb trees.  That is why there are fewer of them left, and a lot of counterfeits built from LeManses and Tempests abound.  The upholstery in the passenger seat is puckered, however, from the abject fear of the passengers.  It is a frightening car to ride in, despite the 5-point racing harnesses I added.  The console holds a pint of gin, "church-key" and bottle of Tabasco very nicely.  My college roommate inspired that rather proper use of the console!

  Nevertheless, the car lives up to its original acronym: GTO--gas, tires and oil--because it burns all three!    So!  Go ahead and color me "inadequate."  I do have an automatic in my truck, however.  No need to shift gears when there's no one to impress with burnouts!

Global warming?  I'm doing my best to contribute!

Be Prepared

(This piece was written in October of 2006 for a childhood friend with whom I had been in the Boy Scouts.)

BE PREPARED

Those of us in the front lines of male Baby Boomers may well remember our days as budding adolescents, starting around age 11 or 12 concurrent with graduation from the Cub Scouts to the Boy Scouts. By then, I was already somewhat aware of (and stunned by) human origins by “sexual congress,” so I was quite ready for the evil, wonderful ways of the Boy Scouts. There was much more to learn.
I was a member of Troop 141 in Roanoke Rapids, NC, a small industrial cotton- and paper-mill city. Our sponsor was the cotton mill up on the hill above our cinder-block Scout building. More of my close friends were also in the Troop, and the highlight of our scouting experiences were the 8 or 10 camping trips we took each year, winter or summer, supervised by our two long-suffering but quite tolerant Scoutmasters, a retired cotton-mill worker and a city police sergeant, who had also been my Cubmaster.
A few years ago, in a pathetic fit of would-be paternal bonding, the Scout movement decided to include fathers in their sons’ camping adventures, encouraging them to come along and be a “pal” to their sons. One of my friends was complaining about being unable to get together with me on a given weekend as he had to go on a camping trip with his son. I implored him to leave the poor boy alone and let him go on the camping trip without a parental unit on hand to kill the joy. I told him I would have been absolutely mortified if my father had been along on any of my Scout camping trips which, back in the 1950’s, were an opportunity to smoke cigars, throw eggs at cars, tip cows, roll yards with toilet paper (preferably in the rain), throw cans of beans in campfires (for an explosive “event”—never mind the shrapnel) and generally get away with bloody murder while no one was watching. Today’s self-appointed moral authorities are surely to be outraged that such shenanigans happened in the august Boy Scouts, of all places, but they did. I was a witness to history. Had my father been present, it would have been a much more boring time, indeed.
Our Scoutmasters were tolerant in the sense that they did not act like Gestapo, interrogating us about certain “events” and administering punishments, but it was understood that no one was to tempt fate by doing all manner of prohibited conduct in their presences. No point in rubbing it in their faces. I think that both men are now dead, but I honor their memories and will love each of them until I die, even though one could never get my name right. Like most Scouting volunteers, they freely gave of their spare time and efforts without any compensation other than maybe the certainty that they were good role models for each of us and maybe the notion that we were absolutely devoted to them. Having also worked for the Boy Scouts later on, I know something about the multiple differences between the unpaid volunteers and the “pros,” which are considerable.
Anyway, we were an all-southern-white, mostly Christian bunch of boys. We did not know diddly-squat about “diversity.” That word probably didn’t even exist back when I was in the Boy Scouts. We also did not obsess about homosexuals or atheists among our ranks; though we knew of some and made fun of them, we were certainly not fearful of them. It was never mentioned, and the thought that some kids might have been excluded from our tawdry ranks because of somebody else’s decree from on high sounds really stupid. Our rag-tag group was perfectly capable of making anyone’s life miserable by ourselves. I daresay the obnoxious prohibition recently declared by the Boy Scout organization against such folks seems a recent phenomenon contrived by those predatory weenies in short pants and knee socks in high places, those despicable folks who constitute the “pros” referenced earlier, for whom I worked in the Summer of 1970 as a Scout camp waterfront director in New York state.
But, I digress. There are too many wonderful stories to remember from my own Scouting days, and the monstrous wildfire is among them. I mentioned earlier that smoking cigars was one of our favored pastimes. We also bought and consumed many packs of cigarettes as well. The notion of 13-year-olds smoking is abhorrent now, but that is what we did (most of us do not smoke today). Anyway, we were on a camping adventure one weekend and were to set up our army-surplus tents in a field covered in broomsedge, with “alleys” mowed through. Those tents seemed to date from World War II, and they were somewhat water-proofed with a dried, oily residue.
That fair spring Friday afternoon, we fought a huge wind blowing across the field as we struggled to tie down our flapping tents. We had gradually gotten them under control and set up, when all of a sudden, three or four boys exploded from their tent and then, almost simultaneously, the tent exploded in fire! All of us were transfixed as we watched the tent dissolve to ash almost immediately, but we were unprepared for what happened next, as the adjacent broomsedge caught fire, too, and the wind whipped it into a screaming freight-train of pure fire, racing across the field away from our tents (thankfully) and toward some houses in the distance! I have never seen anything so frightening move so quickly.

It took perhaps 30 seconds for the fire to race across at least 100 yards of distance, and it would have likely eaten those houses but for a paved road between them and the field on fire. The wind was so strong there were no fires caught on the sides, and the fire “engine” gave out of gas at the road. Whew!
Needless to say, there was much chagrin and second-guessing about what we had witnessed. It seems that the boys within the tent had lit up some cigarettes, and something therein had caught on fire. The rest is well-known. I suppose we were all lucky that no one got hurt and nothing got destroyed but the old tent and a couple of sleeping bags and some clothes, but I would not trade that fabulous memory for anything.
I cannot finish my recollections without remembrance of “Aunt Creasy” and “Mary Jane Hockaday.” Our Troop’s preferred campsite about 8 miles from town was a wooded area down behind a hunting cabin owned by the family of one of our Troop members. We probably went there 5 or 6 times a year. One of the benefits of longer-term membership in the Troop was the “matriculation” from camping novice to seasoned elder. Aunt Creasy’s rundown shack was further down in a field behind our wooded campsite. The first time I had to go into it was terrifying. I was not even 12 years old yet, and I almost froze to death that winter weekend (or so it seemed) because I did not have a proper sleeping bag, only a borrowed woolen bag-liner, and it was COLD!

Aunt Creasy was reputed to have been a very old former black slave who had lived in the shack prior to her death. The shack was OBVIOUSLY haunted by her restless ghost! Each of us novices was tasked one night to fetch a large stick on the floor inside the shack. There was an old well out in front of the shack, and it had been rigged by one of the older Scouts in the Troop with some sort of remote noisemaker that could be actuated by pulling on a wire from a distance. As I passed the old well, a moaning sound emitted from it, and I was almost paralyzed with pure unadulterated fear. I could barely stumble up to the shack and go into its dark recesses with only a weakening flashlight beam for guidance.
I cautiously entered the shack and pushed on the front door which was barely hanging on one hinge. I knew I could not turn back to certain derisive ridicule and probably the inevitable paddling that the older kids enjoyed administering to the younger ones. (Yes, corporal punishment was frequently administered.) Trash was strewn across the floor everywhere, and the old-shack smell of wood smoke and stale grease and garbage was almost nauseating. I pushed into another room and saw, by the dim glow of my flashlight, the big stick to be retrieved.
As I bent over to pick up the stick, a huge older Scout jumped out from behind a door yelling, grabbed me roughly and scared the living you-know-what out of me! I almost peed in my pants. I swear. I have often wondered, however, if he, too, was somewhat scared, listening to the well moan and waiting for some naïve Tenderfoot to come along looking for the stick. I know, when I later assumed the same role, I was apprehensive about being in that “haunted” shack by myself.

The 10-foot-long sunken grave of Mary Jane Hockaday was across a dirt road from the shack of Aunt Creasy in some woods. We knew her name because it was on the tombstone at the head of the grave. She had died a long time earlier according to the dates also on the stone. It was common practice to tell campfire stories about Mary Jane Hockaday, the monstrous, evil woman 9 feet tall who had gone to an early grave after eating children and dying, etc. It was all totally believable, especially by the solitary glow of a campfire. Again, the task was to retrieve a big stick on the grave, and at the moment of retrieval, an older Scout would jump out from behind a big tree adjacent and grab the hapless novice. It is a wonder there were no heart attacks on those camping trips!
I had to experience the terrifying gauntlets of both Aunt Creasy and Mary Jane Hockaday as a novice Boy Scout, all without the assistance of my father, who would surely have been worthless under the circumstances. It is probably good that he never had to apologize for my terror or cowardice. I am not sure he could have handled it.

Mississippi Cool

(This piece ran in the Richmond (Va.) Style Weekly as the "Back Page" editorial July 13, 2005.)

MISSISSIPPI COOL

In August of 1964, just before I turned eighteen years old, three bodies were found buried in an earthen dam near Philadelphia, Mississippi, after their disappearance the previous June. Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner, two guys from New York, were down south “agitating” by registering blacks to vote in Neshoba County. They, along with a local man, James Chaney, were apparently murdered by some members of the Ku Klux Klan who did not take kindly to the notion of blacks exercising the civil right to vote, nor those “stirring things up.”

No one was ever prosecuted under Mississippi law for their killings until last week. A federal jury had deadlocked in 1967 in the case against Edgar Ray Killen, “a former Ku Klux Klansman … part-time preacher and sawmill operator” (according to recent AP reports) but finally the 80-year-old Killen, in a wheelchair and with an oxygen tube up his nose, was convicted in state court of lesser charges of manslaughter and sentenced to 20 years on each charge, consecutive, which amounts to a life sentence.

Killen’s misfortune was to have outlived most of the other suspects. Many folks celebrated Killen’s convictions last week, but they were based, not upon live testimony but mostly upon read statements of decedents that were admittedly not subject to cross-examination by his lawyers. One has to be concerned about the due-process implications of those convictions, but such concerns will be muted in the clamor of celebration. The horrific case is given credit for the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

At the time of their deaths, I was one of those callow white southerners who wondered what the fuss was all about. Most FBI agents and its director, J. Edgar Hoover, were also openly indifferent to the plight of civil rights workers in the South. One wonders if he, too, did not feel they got what they were “asking for.” The movie, “Mississippi Burning” purports to credit FBI agents for diligent investigation and prosecution of early civil rights offenses, but it is a lie. Like myself at the time, the FBI and Hoover didn’t give a damn.

A lot of southern politicians have rankled under the South-focused enforcements of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act and have railed against them over the years. Even recently, the Mississippi Senators Thad Cochran and former Majority Leader Trent Lott refused to support an anti-lynching resolution that passed the US Senate. (Hang ‘em high—still.) However, those relatively modest legal changes were really good for the South and all of us inhabitants. We white folks in the South owe a lot of our current freedoms to the memories of James Chaney, Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman, and many others who died for our civil liberties (but not our sins).

During the 2004 presidential campaign, for some reason I was reminded of something that I had forgotten: the underlying basis for my strong dislike of Ronald Reagan, which I have felt all these years since he started his first campaign for President in the summer of 1980. I have found myself in a persistent lonely position. My first memories of Ronald Reagan were pleasant ones from his hosting of the “GE Theater” and of “Death Valley Days” on TV. I could easily have become a Reagan supporter like so many others drawn to his cheery, avuncular personality. After the dour, unfortunate presidency of Jimmy Carter, many voters were ready to kick him out of the White House and install the ever-optimistic Reagan. The fact that he is now dead further protects his popular legacy.

Some Republicans have been very adept at exploiting the underlying residual fears and resentments of many white Southerners regarding the true emancipation of blacks. The repugnant inactions of Senators Cochran and Lott are but one example. Democrats have piously resisted, for the most part, such exploitation, but many blacks feel “tokenized” by the Democratic Party to this day. Ronald Reagan was one of those politicians who did not worry himself much about residual memories and images. He soundly defeated Southerner Jimmy Carter in the South in 1980.

The thing that sealed my hostility toward Reagan was his early trip to Philadelphia, Mississippi in the summer of 1980 to basically raise Hell about the popular legal fiction of “states’ rights,” a red-meat issue for white Southerners. Reagan (and his handlers) had to know what the specific history of Philadelphia was, and I believe that is specifically why they went there, to assure white voters with a wink and a nod (Reagan’s famous signals) that he “understood.” What business would a former California governor otherwise have in a backwater like Philadelphia, Mississippi, except to say, “I’m one of you”?

Somehow I was reminded of all this 24 years later. I remembered that a US presidential candidate was openly sly and indifferent to the murderous horror of what he was seemingly endorsing. Mean, unambiguous messages were being sent, but the animosity toward Jimmy Carter was so intense, no one I knew cared. But I never really forgot how I felt about Reagan, to the point of nausea.

Edgar Ray Killen will enter the penitentiary, probably never to come out, except in a body-bag. We should remember that Ronald Reagan proved in the summer of 1980 that “politics ain’t bean-bag,” as his political nemesis Tip O’Neill supposedly said. Ronald Reagan proved that winning is everything, and that being president means never having to say you’re sorry.


POSTSCRIPT, 2007: I recall that W. C. Fields's tombstone epitaph supposedly reads:
"All in all, I'd rather be in Philadelphia." I think he was not referring to Mississippi.

Koo-koo, ca-choo

(This piece was submitted to Richmond (Va.) Style Weekly in June of 2005. It did not run on the "Back Page" but was published on its Website around that time.)

WHERE HAVE YOU GONE, MRS. ROBINSON?

(Paul Simon)

(Soaring from “The Graduate” to crashing and burning at “The Big Chill.”)

Long hair. Long hair was a totemic icon in the late 1960’s, for both guys and gals and a bitter point of contention for many others. My own hair was never very long, but I liked it on the ladies. Back then, long-haired Katherine (sp?) Ross was a lust-muffin for a lot of guys, and many of us were envious of Benjamin Braddock’s dilemma of lackluster courting of her character, Elaine Robinson, in “The Graduate” while having illicit, hot adultery with her perfectly-coiffed, “middle-aged” mama. (Dustin Hoffman should be so lucky. Nobody cared it was acting.) Most guys my age nurtured the fantasy of sex with the seductive 35-year-old Mrs. Robinson brilliantly rendered by Anne Bancroft. We never knew her given name; she was always “Mrs,” which lent even more mystery and attraction to the idea. Though some of us also fantasized about an encounter with the long-haired, plain-vanilla daughter, she was totally eclipsed by the mother. Katherine Ross has aged along with the rest of us, and now “Mrs. Robinson” has gone—forever.

Most of us lost our relative innocence with Benjamin in “The Graduate.” Our journey toward redemption with “The Big Chill” has been sidetracked in many ways. Those of us born in the late 1940’s and early 1950’s are truly middle-aged now, and we are as differentiated as the members of any other “generation,” notwithstanding the Baby-Boomer pigeonholes into which so many marketing types and journalists wish to cram us. Many of us arrested as our hardened, cynical selves exemplified by William Hurt’s character in “The Big Chill” without any such redemption. We hold ourselves up to the light and try to see the homogenized, media-generated Boomer archetype in ourselves, but to no avail. None of us ever got to make love to “Mrs. Robinson” or “Elaine” for real, and because they never really existed, that is probably a good thing. Yet, one thing we all pretty much share is the intensity of our aversion to getting older, and that seems to be what is driving the marketing bus. Most of us think of ourselves as forever young enough to walk in Benjamin Braddock’s flippers. Most of us aging guys who “graduated” with Benjamin Braddock in the late 1960’s will forever remember “Mrs. Robinson,” while few will remember “Elaine.” I shall always treasure the lust in my heart created by Anne Bancroft’s intense performance in “The Graduate.”
I was also quite interested by Anne Bancroft’s long-term marriage to the great funnyman, Mel Brooks. Somehow that fits: a “love totem” married to a comic genius; “Springtime For Hitler” meets “Mrs. Robinson,” proof that each had great tastes in the opposite sex. I truly envied Mr. Brooks his comedic achievements and his companionship to Ms. Bancroft.
So life passes by and we dote on our offspring; we deplore their failures and take pride in their accomplishments. We dread what the future will hold for them as we wondered about our own. We want to caution them against all the false turns and dead ends that we discovered (as if for the first time ever), but most of us should understand they will just have to find that out for themselves. We should warn them about the futility of following “role models” and the traps of fantasy romances, all to no avail.
Listening to NPR recently, I heard a clip of an interview with Ms. Bancroft mildly complaining about the preoccupation of many identifying her with “Mrs. Robinson.” I understand her annoyance, but I wanted her to understand what I was feeling also. And I never did get into “plastics,” as Mr. Robinson exhorted Benjamin to do.
So, with the untimely death of Anne Bancroft I shall simply say, with total affection that just about all of us, not just Jesus, will forever love “Mrs. Robinson” more that she will know.

Wo-wo-wo.

Freedom's Just Another Word ...

(This piece originally ran under the title, "Hallowed Ground" as a "Back Page" editorial in the Richmond (Va.) Style Weekly in late January of 2005.)

FREEDOM’S JUST ANOTHER WORD …

(Kris Kristofferson)

 Several Virginia legislators, including Delegate Bill Janis (R-Henrico, Goochland) propose[d--it failed] to amend Article 16 of the Declaration of Rights in the Constitution of Virginia with new language as shown in italics below.  The Virginia Declaration of Rights is very old and predates the First Amendment to the US Constitution and is also its legal predecessor.

Section 16. Free exercise of religion; no
establishment of religion.

“No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any
religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor
shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened
in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on
account of his religious opinions or belief; but all
men shall be free to profess and by argument to
maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and
the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect
their civil capacities.

To secure further the people’s right to acknowledge
their faith according to the dictates of conscience,
neither the Commonwealth nor its political
subdivisions shall establish any official religion,
but the people’s right to exercise their religious
beliefs, heritage, and traditions on public property,
including public schools, shall not be infringed;
however, the Commonwealth and its political
subdivisions, including public school divisions, shall
not compose school prayers, nor require any person to
join in prayer or other religious activity.

And the General Assembly shall not prescribe any
religious test whatever, or confer any peculiar
privileges or advantages on any sect or denomination."

Delegate Janis has informed me that he intends to support the amendment to the Virginia Declaration of Rights.  There is absolutely no evidence that anyone’s “exercise of religious beliefs” has been “infringed.”  Delegate Janis, however, said  the following in a recent e-mail to me:

“From my seat on the floor of the House of Delegates directly beneath a marble plaque dedicated to the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, I watch warily as many of my colleagues -- the very successors of Jefferson, Madison, Henry and Monroe -- enact statutes, regulations and laws that daily encroach on the free exercise clause, ostensibly in the very name of our shared heritage of religious liberty. They want a Commonwealth free from religion. ...”

In reply, I pointed out to Delegate Janis that he had not specified a single actual event of his colleagues “encroach[ing] on the free exercise clause. …” yet he had nothing further to say in that regard.  His irresponsible accusations without proof are dangerously inclined to provoke misunderstanding among the people about what is actually going on, a misunderstanding intended, in my opinion, to procure the approval of a totally unnecessary constitutional amendment.  It is simply untrue that individuals are being repressed in the personal expression of their religious faith, and of all places, Virginia has done the most to ensure such freedoms.  We lawyers are used to examining the “fine print” of documents to see what is really being said in them.  Consider the language of the proposed amendment:

“... but the people’s right to exercise their
religious beliefs, heritage, and traditions on public
property, including public schools, shall not be
infringed; ....”

As I wrote Delegate Janis:

"What does it mean “right to exercise ... shall not be infringed ...”?  You and I both know these words are not innocent words of art.  They are precise words designed to enlarge something that someone thinks is too restricted."

If, in fact, such “infringements” are happening, then writing more words won’t help.  There is no such “infringement” of an individual’s “exercise” of religious belief anywhere in the United States, unless we are talking about someone monopolizing public (tax-supported) property for particular religious purposes.  But if we allow such public religious monopolies, we are no longer dealing with an individual’s religious expression but instead trying to get the stamp of state approval on a certain religion and a certain exclusive religious viewpoint on state “turf.”  That is what is prohibited by both Virginia law and U.S. constitutional law, and Delegate Janis and his fellows are trying to change that.  They see the “free exercise” clause of the First Amendment as allowing the “oppressed” majority to freely impose its beliefs on others at taxpayer expense.  Religious people are free under current law to use bumper stickers, signs in front yards and vacant lots, billboards, tent revivals, radio and TV ads -- whatever is desired to promote their specific beliefs.  What they cannot legally do is use public property for such purposes. Why it is so important to anyone that public property (courtrooms, schools, town halls) and employees (teachers) be exclusively co-opted for such purposes?  All the various factions and beliefs cannot possibly be accommodated.  The proposed amendment is unnecessary unless we are trying to convert the United States and the Commonwealth of Virginia into a Christian fundamentalist theocracy, then this amendment is the camel’s nose under the tent.

More than 200 years ago, Thomas Jefferson anticipated that someone one day would try to change the delicate balance of religious liberty crafted in Virginia.  He was no stranger to religious extremism even then.  In his Statute For Religious Freedom he said:

“… to declare this act to be irrevocable would be of
no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do
declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the
natural rights of mankind; and that if any act shall
be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to
narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement
of natural right.”

All patriotic and devout Virginians should reject the amendment’s intrusive, dishonest foolishness for what it is.